LA approves boycott of Arizona over immigration law

Los Angeles on Wednesday became the largest city yet to boycott Arizona over its tough new law targeting illegal immigration in a move that likely will affect some $8 million in contracts with the state.

The City Council voted 13-1 to bar Los Angeles from conducting business with Arizona unless the law is repealed. The vote followed an emotional council discussion during which many members noted that their ancestors were U.S. immigrants.

Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa already has said he would approve the boycott.

The proposal could affect investments and contracts worth as much as $52 million, including contracts for airport, harbor and trucking services, according to a report from the city’s chief legislative analyst. That report recommends the council consider suspending travel, cutting contracts and refraining from making any new ones with Arizona-based companies.

But Councilwoman Janice Hahn, who co-authored the resolution, said it would be impractical to cancel most of those deals and only about $7 million to $8 million in city contracts probably would be affected.

“US Airways is based in Arizona and they certainly fly in and out (of Los Angeles)” and it would hardly be feasible to end those flights, Hahn said before the council vote.

Hahn said the Los Angeles boycott also won’t affect the city’s Department of Water and Power, which has wind farm and nuclear energy contracts in Arizona. Among the contracts with Arizona companies that conceivably could be terminated include those for helicopter services, Taser guns, waste management, engineering and surveillance equipment.

Hahn said “the best scenario” would be to turn around and give those contracts to California suppliers.

The resolution claims that Arizona’s new law encourages racial profiling and is unconstitutional. The law, set to take effect July 29, requires police enforcing another law to question a person about his or her immigration status if there is “reasonable suspicion” that the person is in the United States illegally and makes it a state crime to be in the country illegally. Several lawsuits seeking to block its implementation are pending in U.S. District Court in Phoenix.

Some polls have shown strong popular support for the Arizona law and critics are concerned that other states may follow up with their own versions.

Several cities across the country have passed resolutions or urged boycotts to protest the law, including California cities such as Oakland and San Diego. A nonbinding resolution approved Tuesday by San Francisco city supervisors urges a boycott of Arizona-based businesses and asks sports leagues not to hold championship games or tournaments there.

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer said the boycotts are unfortunate and misguided, primarily because the law mirrors a federal requirement that legal immigrants carry immigration papers.

“It’s already the law in the United States, and I have a responsibility to stand up and protect the people of Arizona and we will do that,” Brewer said Tuesday.

Charges that the law will lead to racial profiling are “just pure rhetoric,” Brewer said.

“I find it really interesting that we have people out there that are attempting a boycott in favor of illegal actions in Arizona. That to me is just unbelievable.”

Of the resolution in Los Angeles, Hahn said: “We want to stand back and say that we’re against it. We’re hoping that Arizona will be the last state to do this instead of just the first state to do it.”

The city staged a similar economic boycott against South Africa during apartheid and against Colorado after voters in 1992 passed a state law repealing local ordinances that banned discrimination against homosexuals.

7 comments

YES THIS MEANS ALOT COMING FROM A STATE WITH OVER 800 BILLION IN DEBT LOL ,AND YES ARNIE BRING YOUR BROKEDOWN SELF OVER ,ACTUALLY YOU’D LIKE THAT JUST TO GET THE HECK OUT OF THAT DEMOCRATIC BROKEDOWN STATE… YOU HAD THE NERVE TO THINK YOU COULD FIX,,YOU ONLY JUMPED INTO A DEMOCRATIC PERANA POOL .GET OUT WHILE YOU STILL HAVE YOUR AZZ HAHAHA LOL

I believe that it should be illegal or unconstitutional that an elected
official can call for a boycott of any city or state in the US. Are we not the United States of America? These elected officials calling for a boycott
of Arizona do not have the best interest of the people they serve.
Are they saying they support illegal entry into our country? If this
call of boycotts from one state government to another continues
we might as well be called The Divided States of America

WE REALLY DON’T NEED TO KEEP HEARING ABOUT DIFFERENT PLACES (CITYS )BOYCOTTING US .ARE WE SUPPOSED TO CURL UP AND DIE WITH THIS INFO ?WE’LL GET BY .WE JUST WANT TO KNOW THE (COMPANYS )BOYCOTTING US SO WE CAN BOYCOTT THEM.AS IT IS, SOME OF THEM DON’T WANT US TO KNOW WHO THEY ARE BECAUSE IT’S A TWO STREET BUDDY …….WE’LL GET BY …GO JAN, GO JOE, GO JD, WERE BEHIND YOU……..;)

Shame on Los Angeles! Shame on the politicians who call Arizonans Nazis! (Which they did in the discussion of this bill.) Shame on the L.A. City Council members who insult American veterans of World War II. (Which they did by comparing AZ to Japanese internment camps.)

promote an advertising campaign to boycott San Pedro Ca. and ask all Calif citizens who support your efforts ( 1070) to improve the safety and order of Arizona to list all businesses in the LA 15th Councilmanic district buy elsewhere, put up billboards in an around LA council 15 declaring the act of economic war waged by Janic Hahn and the LA city council is economically dangerous to those constitutents who do business within the 15th council district.
San Pedro, Wilmington, Harbor City, Harbor Gateway are the subdivisions of Council 15 that should feel the pain.
The LA neighborhood councils within those areas are a perfect forum, the names of the council members and their emails are listed on the DONE(Dept of Neighborhood Empowerment) web site under LACITY.

Social

Check Also

The proposal doesn't specifically mention taxes on sugary drinks, only saying any tax on food products must be uniform. But testimony from a supermarket industry lobbyist industry made it clear that's what the bill is all about.